B-258572: Oct 11, 1994

Additional Materials:

Contact:

The closing time was changed to 2:30 p.m. Was not delivered at the place set for receipt until 4:30 p.m. on September 8. Suncraft's proposal was rejected as late. Where the sole or paramount reason for the late receipt was government mishandling after timely receipt in the place designated for receipt of proposals. There was no timely receipt at the place designated for receipt of proposals. The proposal was properly rejected. The protest is dismissed.

DECISION

Suncraft Engineering, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as late by the Department of the Navy under solicitation No. N68936-94-R-0406.

In this case, the solicitation originally announced a closing time of 2:30 p.m., September 9, 1994; by amendment No. 1, the closing time was changed to 2:30 p.m., September 8. On September 7, Suncraft contacted the agency to request that the closing time be extended and to discuss perceived deficiencies in the solicitation. The agency stated that the closing time would not be extended. Suncraft's proposal, sent via Federal Express, was not delivered at the place set for receipt until 4:30 p.m. on September 8. Suncraft's proposal was rejected as late. The protester maintains that in light of these circumstances and of alleged mechanical difficulties in the aircraft use by Federal Express its late proposal should be considered.

Offerors bear responsibility for delivering their offers to the proper place at the proper time. Remstar Int'l Inc., B-242680, Jan. 23, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 65. An Agency may consider a late offer, hand-carried by a commercial carrier, where the sole or paramount reason for the late receipt was government mishandling after timely receipt in the place designated for receipt of proposals. Weather Data Servs., Inc., B-238970, June 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 582. Here, there was no timely receipt at the place designated for receipt of proposals--Federal Express simply delivered the proposal 2 hours late. Under the applicable rules, late bids and proposals may not be accepted under such circumstances. T.E. DeLoss Equip. Rentals, B-214029, July 10, 1984, 84-2 CPD Para. 35; Phelps-Stokes Fund, B-194347, May 21, 1979, 79-1 CPD Para. 366. Therefore, the proposal was properly rejected.

Mar 13, 2018

Interoperability ClearinghouseWe dismiss the protest because the protester, a not-for-profit entity, is not an interested party to challenge this sole-source award to an Alaska Native Corporation under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program.